Tabs

Discussing issues that The United States face both foreign and domestic. A Non-partisan viewpoint where we believe in right and wrong not right and left, hopefully forming a more UNITED States of America.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

First off, I want to say I was wrong about the election. I
thought it would be closer than it actually was. By mid afternoon on election I
knew it looked dim for Republicans. I miscalculated the impact of the last four
years on voters. Having said that, the 2012 election does provide some very
interesting into future elections.

With a poor
economy, record, and skyrocketing deficits under President Obama the last four
years, Republicans had an excellent formula to pick up the Senate and the
White House. They got neither. The 2012 results may well indicate the United
States received a political realignment in 2008.

Political
Scientists like to categorize elections into four categories.

1) Maintaining election. Partisan
ideology and loyalty remains the same and rewards the “in-party” or stronger
political party. This is the most common election and it maintains the status
quo.

2) Deviating Election. This is a
temporary shift where political ideology and loyalty generally remains the
same, however some people defect to punish a bad performance/appeal to the
weaker party. Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton are examples of a temporary
deviation. There has never been a three-term deviation in American history.

3) Realigning election. The
stronger party takes back control from the deviation. Political ideology,
partisanship, and loyalty return to the norm. John F. Kennedy in 1960 and
George W. Bush in 2000 are examples of a reinstatement.

4) Realigning election. Partisan
loyalty and ideology changes, they long lasting impact, and happen about once a
generation, usually triggered around a national crisis. The two main
realignments are FDR’s “Progressive Era” in 1932 and Reagan’s “Conservative
Era” in 1980.

2008 appears to have been a
realignment election, perhaps triggered the economic crisis. According to
Walter Burnham, realignments are almost predictable. They tend to occur at 38-year
intervals. 1818, 1856, 1894, 1932
were all realignments with 1970 being another one (but hurt because of a plurality of issues in the early 70s, not fully integrated until Reagan in 1980). 38 years after 1970, is
2008.

There are also 5
characteristics indicating a realignment election. 1) Change
in Regional Base of Party Support.

Whigs
were in both in the North and South before the civil war. After the war, the GOP
was nonexistent in south. In the New Deal Era, the GOP lost a ton of support in
North. Under the Reagan Era, Democrats lost the South.2) Change
in Social Groups Base Support. People
will go opposite directions. Pro Slavery Whigs became democrats/Anti-secession
Democrats became Republican. Under Reagan, conservative Democrats became
Republican.

3) Mobilization
of New Voters.

4) New
Issues Divide Electorate.

The economy generally is the reason for this one.

5) Voters
Change Patterns and Thoughts About Parties.

Party
ID change is an example.

In 2008/2012 we do appear to see a
regional change in support. Once conservative states such as Virginia,
Colorado, North Carolina, (and to a lesser extent: Indiana) are now considered
toss-ups. The toss-up states such as Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, have easily
gone blue in the last two elections. The once “hopeful” turn red states such as
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, appear to not even be in play at least at
the Presidential level. The once dominant conservative states of Arizona and
Texas will be in play for Democrats around 2020 (more on that year later).
Texas voter ID is nearly tied between Republicans and Democrats.

We also appear to see a change in
the social groups. Hispanics generally have always gone liberal, but Bush
nearly earned half of their support in 2004. Now they have gone heavily to the
Democrats. Even Cuban-Americans in Florida, known to go about 70/30 Republican,
went to Obama on election night in 2012. African Americans, single women, and young Americans all
heavily went blue as well.

Speaking of mobilization of new
voters. Obama captured the young Americans solidly in 2008 and 2012. According
to V.O. Key, who is one of the most respected political science experts,
claimed if you get voters to vote the same way in consecutive elections,
you will most likely have them for life. 2016 will indicate several things,
including if Republicans lost a whole generation of voters.

New issue dividing the electorate:
Even the least politically involved people could name a few today that vastly
divide this country.

The fifth part, Obama may not have
yet, especially because of 2010, but it does appear he has the other four.

So based on this evidence, 2008 was
either a deviation or a realigning election. No deviation has ever gone three
terms, so 2016 will determine 2008’s fate. The other reason why 2008 was a
realigning election is because of the 2012 Senate elections. If Republicans
cannot win in Montana, North Dakota, (lesser extent: Missouri and Indiana), they
are in trouble. The political conditions and seats up for election should have
given both houses to the Republicans.

In 2012, Republicans did weaker in
some categories despite the last terrible four years. More Mormons went to Bush in 2004 than Romney in 2012. Mitt barely squeaked by the popular vote of
John McCain, yet both came nowhere close to
Bush’s number in 2004, which still would have lost to Obama in both elections.In
Colorado, more Democrats voted on election night than Republicans, an
accomplishment that didn’t even occur in 2008.

The saving grace to the GOP may
have been 2010. If not were the massive victories across the country, they may
have lost the House of Representatives in 2012. With redistricting, the House of Representatives
is mainly secure until the 2020 Census. Republicans now have eight years to get
their act in order before they truly become the “weaker” party in realignment.
The party, however, is in disarray. ORCA was a massive failure, Speaker John
Boehner cannot even keep his own party in-line, and he is kicking prominent
people, such as Representatives Tim Huelskamp (Kansas-1), Justin Amash (Michigan-3),
Walter Jones (North Carolina-3) and David Schweikert (Arizona-5 but the district
will be relabeled the 6th in 2013) off of key committee assignments. Amash claims leadership did not even contact him before the news became public about him losing his committee position. Some Republican lawmakers even faced establishment favored candidates in the 2012 primary.

In terms of the Fiscal Cliff, Republicans
cannot win and will blink first. If they make no deal, they will get the blame.
If there is a compromise and taxes do go up (even by a small percentage), they will lose the base. If they let Obama get everything he
wants and it fails or by some miracle works, they will get the blame if it goes bad and
certainly will not get the credit if the situation improves. If not careful, the GOP could go the way of
the Whigs, but that may be a stretch at this point.

The 2016 field looks promising for
Republicans such as Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Remember though, the
GOP establishment vehemently opposed these candidates in the primary of 2010.
With maybe the exceptions of Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan, which GOP “establishment”
candidate looks promising for the election? The bench is made up of
non-established candidates. Which may be good for the GOP because the
establishment choice has been 1-5 since 1976. The only year they won was in 1988, which was
probably because of the Reagan Realignment. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee
in 2016, I do not see how Republicans can win.

If 2008 was a realigning election,
2016 will go to the Democrats. If it was a deviation, the GOP will win the
White House. Republicans need to get their act together and move quickly to
attract new voters, but stay on principle. If the GOP cannot, they will be weak
after 2020. They will not have the chance to be as strong as they were on the
national level in the 1980s, mid 1990s thru early 2000s, until 2046.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Since two weeks ago, there have been slight changes, most helping Mitt Romney, but is it enough to make him the 45th President of the United States?

There are three states that I cannot comfortably project. Flipping a coin in determining these states is probably just as good of a way to determine them. One of them by itself will determine the election, so the other two do not really matter. New Hampshire went from "lean Romney" to toss up although there probably is a slight Romney edge. Same for Obama in Iowa, although this has become toss up because of the four major newspaper endorsements in the state all went to Romney.

Ohio: Almost everything indicates a slight Obama advantage, although there has been significant progress by the GOP to counter the Early Voting/Absentee Ballot advantage Democrats had back in 2008. The "260,000" vote margin Obama won by back in '08 has now gone down to within 3,000 vote swing either way. Republicans generally cast more votes on Election Day than Democrats so this would indicate an Romney advantage. Obama's ground game is better though (as we witnessed its juggernaut status in 2008) so this could still allow him to squeak out a victory. Ohio will be the closest it has been compared to the last three elections. It will be tight and whoever wins Ohio wins the White House.

The other advantage that has helped Romney is some blue states. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota are all within two points based on some polling. Give the slight advantage to Obama in these four states because of the historical advantage Democrats have. It is possible that Romney could win one to four of these states (and Ohio wouldn't matter, although that would probably go to Romney then as well). Ideology in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania has changed since the last presidential election and the GOP have an excellent ground game in Wisconsin as scene in 2012 Recall Election of Governor Scott Walker et al.

North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida are most likely going to Romney. I have them as pink because they are considered toss-up, but it is relatively safe to place them in the Romney camp. Nevada is the same for Obama.

In Colorado, more Republicans voted early and the state now has more registered Republicans than Democrats. Both were the opposite back in 2008. While Colorado is considered a toss-up, this data strongly suggests a Romney victory in three of the four corner states.

Essentially what I am concluding is after spending hundreds, if not thousands of hours analyzing this election, the only prediction I can make is that it will not be an Obama landslide. Do not be surprised if Romney has a landslide tomorrow and do not be surprised if Obama or Romney squeak by. Obama either barely holds on or Romney is the 45th President of the United States.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Before the first debate, President Obama had enough Electoral Votes to win the Presidency, even if he lost all the toss up states. Since the first debate, the Mitt Romney portrayed by the media has not been scene and voters now see him in a new light. Mitt Romney now has stronger favorability ratings than President Obama. Countless polls show people stating Mitt Romney can handle the economy better than President Obama. People watching the debates saw caring individual, who was looking presidential, and on top of his game. Not some rich guy out of touch with Americans looking to help his buddies save money by shipping jobs overseas.

If the election were held today, Obama would narrowly win:

The "Toss Up" states of Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida will go Mitt Romney on election night. New Hampshire and Colorado are seeing movement toward Mitt Romney and I would place these states on his side as well.

Iowa and Nevada are showing strong early voting/absentee ballots toward Obama and while there is time for Mitt Romney to make up ground (Rasmussen has Iowa at 48-48) President Obama has the advantage in these two states.

President Obama now has one firewall left in order to win a second term, Ohio. Almost all polls now have this state within the margin of error, so it's hard to say which way it will go, but as of right now, President Obama has a razor thin advantage only because he was leading there for awhile.

While no Republican has ever won the Presidency without Ohio, ironically Romney doesn't need it (but it would be his easiest way to win).

This firewall can be breeched three ways.

1) Win in Iowa and Nevada. As I've stated earlier here, this appears to be a slight uphill battle.

2) Win Ohio. Self-explanitory.

3) Steal Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Michigan.

In terms of option 3, Mitt Romney is the best candidate for Republicans to win Pennsylvania since 1988. Pennsylvanians like a big government, moderate republican. Tom Ridge, Tom Corbett, and Arlen Specter are the type of people that can win in a state where 50% of the people are registered Democrats.

Pennsylvania now also has other factors making it in play. Many blue-collar families from Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and the Northeast (Scranton region) are registered democrats, but are furious at this administration. One factor is because of the new resource of natural gas being drilled from the Marcellus Shale. Some polls show Mitt Romney winning in Pennsylvania and another moderate, Tom Smith (maybe Pennsylvania's like politicians named Tom) could be an upset choice for the GOP to win a Senate seat (over Senator Bob Casey, Jr.).

What determines this state is whether the counties surrounding Philadelphia (Chester, Bucks, Delaware, and Montgomery), Pittsburgh , and in the Northeast show up to vote. If they do, this counters the the urban vote, and will be a victory for Romney. If they stay home (which would be a half vote for Romney compared to 2008) Obama still wins the state.

Wisconsin. Since Governor Scott Walker survived the recall and Paul Ryan is the Vice Presidential nominee, this state is in play. It hasn't gone to the GOP since 1984 so Obama still has the advantage here, but it will be close.

Minnesota and Michigan. They are the least likely to go to Romney, but if this is a landslide statement election, they will. I have scene internal polling where Obama is leading in Minnesota by two points, with still enough undecided voters to sway it to Romney.

Even the liberal states of Connecticut and Oregon (which will go to Obama) don't even have a double digit lead for the President.

So if the election were held on October 23, President Obama would barely win. There are still two weeks to go and the momentum is clearly with Governor Romney. This will be a tight election.

So tight as a matter of fact, a region in Maine or Omaha could decide this. Nebraska and Maine do not award all of their Electoral Votes to the statewide winner. They award them via congressional district winners with two votes going to the statewide winner. [Note: Electoral votes are given to states via amount of Congressional Districts + the two Senators they have].

Before 2008 in Nebraska and Maine, the statewide winner won all congressional districts. In 2008, Barack Obama won Nebraska's 2nd congressional district (Omaha) awarding him one electoral vote from the state. Since 2010, the district has been gerrymandered so it's unlikely Obama carries the district again.

Maine's 2nd congressional district (mostly the northern region of the state) is very tight. In fact, Romney may win it. So if it is a 269-269 type scenario (where Ohio and NH go to Obama and Iowa and Nevada go to Romney or the map shown in my previous post), BUT Obama takes Omaha or Romney wins part of Maine, this election could be determined by one congressional district.

Monday, July 16, 2012

In a time of great divide in the United States, could we afford another 2000 Florida-like situation? Could it be possible that 2012 will be more controversial than 2000? While it is only July and we are 110+ days outside of the election (practically an eternity for America) there is the possibility that the next President of the United States will be chosen by the House of Representatives as neither President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will earn the magic number of 270 delegates to secure the election.

The 2012 election will most likely be chosen by 12 "swing" states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Outside of those states, President Obama currently has the advantage meaning Mitt Romney will need about 2/3 of the remaining delegates if he is to win it all. So if Ohio or Florida is called early for Obama on election night, he is virtually guaranteed a second term.

Looking further, some of these 12 states are close in the polls, but have not been "swinging" in recent Presidential Elections. Pennsylvania has not gone to a Republican since 1988. While Mitt Romney is the type of Republican who could win the Keystone State and the GOP may have the best chance since 1988, a semi-popular Democrat (Sen. Bob Casey) is up for reelection against an unknown candidate Tom Smith. So if Obama can't ride the coattails of Senator Casey and win in my home state, I'm popping open the champagne bottle before the Mountain Time Zone is finished voting.

Wisconsin falls into the same category. While it was close in 2000 and 2004, the Democratic nominee has claimed the state in the past six Presidential elections. In order for the 269/269 scenario to work, this state needs to flip to Romney. If Governor Scott Walker can survive the recall and a recent poll shows Romney ahead 47% - 44%, the Badger State can turn red.

Obama appears to be semi-comfortably ahead in New Hampshire and is slightly ahead in Michigan according to most polls collected by Real Clear Politics. Iowa, the state that literally was the launchpad for Obama against Hillary Clinton in the primary (and supported him over McCain in November) will be tight on election night. Rasmussen Reports gives Romney the slight edge in Iowa.

Nevada went to Bush twice, but to Obama in 2008. The Nevada Republican Party is literally in a civil war between Ron Paul supporters and the state establishment. Because of this turmoil, I see Obama taking this state again. New Mexico and Colorado have become more liberal this past decade (although Gov. Susana Martinez (R-NM) needs to be the blueprint for the Republican Party to attract more Hispanic voters). Since Sen. Bennett (D-CO) survived the Tea Party wave of 2010, Obama should be able to claim two of the four corner states.

North Carolina, the state hosting the Democratic National Convention. The host site can be kind a few months after the streamers and balloons leave, but I expect this state to be a disaster for the DNC. People are skipping the convention and the recent divide between the national party/local voters on some key issues will make the Tar Heels wear a Wolfpack Red in November.

Virginia. With the exception of Wisconsin, this could be the most controversial call in the map especially if North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida go to Romney because Virginia would be ignoring the regional/demographic trend [Note: If Wisconsin and Virginia are wrong on the map above, Mitt Romney earns 272 delegates].

Before Obama won the state in 2008, the last time Virginia danced with the left in a Presidential Election was all the way back in 1964 with President Johnson. The Real Clear Politics Average has Obama with a 3 point advantage over Romney (Rasmussen has the state tied, poll within the RCP link) and Virginia likes playing "bi-polar" politics. In other words: Virginia likes to vote for a Governor and President from a different party.

In 2000, Virginia voted for President Bush, yet voted Mark Warner (D) as Governor in 2002. 2004 went to Bush again, but felt blue shortly thereafter as it voted for Tim Kaine (D) in 2006. Two years later, the state voted for President Obama and in 2010, (if you're following the trend) they overwhelmingly voted for the the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell [Note: Virginia Governors are limited to one term]. So expect this bi-polar trend to continue giving this state to Obama in November.

If all that plays out, the Congressional races just became way more important because neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney acquire the needed 270 delegates. If that happens, the House Chamber votes (not individually, but by state) and whichever candidate gets 26 states, gets the Presidency. This could be extremely controversial because Obama could easily win Pennsylvania on election day, yet lose that state on the House vote because there are more Republicans than Democrats representing Pennsylvania. A similar event happened in the 1824 Presidential Election. This is unlikely to happen in 2012, but it is a possibility.

Monday, May 14, 2012

The Obama Administration are hypocrites when it comes to wildlife. Readers of my website will recently recall my article about the future of the Scimitar Horned Oryx, Addax, and Dama Gazelle. These animals total over 60,000 in Texas, yet are extinct in the wild in Africa. Since the order took effect for these three species, ranchers have told me stories about how animals that are injured (such as a broken leg) CANNOT BE TOUCHED by anyone since no federal permits have been issued and the animals are suffering. These three beautiful animals may not exist beyond this decade should the United States Fish and Wildlife Order remain in effect.

Now there is more troubling news as it effects our national symbol, the Bald Eagle. Some may recall, the Obama Administration recently allowed two Bald Eagles to be hunted by a Native American tribe in Wyoming. Now it appears the United States Wish and Wildlife Service has declared war on the Bald Eagles. In a new statement, the Wish and Wildlife Service will now allow the killing of Bald Eagles in the name of "green energy" for the country.

So President Barack Obama and his Administration wants to "defend" three animals in Texas as they order these species cannot be harmed or touched without a federal permit, yet total over 60,000. Then the same people will allow the killing of our national symbol, the Bald Eagle, which totals less than 10,000 nesting pairs and tries to loosen hunting restrictions on this animal. The Obama Administration are hypocrites when it comes to wildlife and will do anything to support their agenda and punish the groups who are against it.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Former Democrat, Tom Smith is chosen as the GOP contender to challenge Senator Bob Casey.

Congressman Tim Holden (D-17) is getting crushed right now in the primary. He voted against ObamaCare.Union backed Congressman Mark Critz has defeated Congressman Altimire who voted against ObamaCare. The two districts were combined following Pennsylvania losing one Congressional Seat from the 2010 Census.Senator and GOP Majority Leader, Dominic Pileggi, was losing early in the primary, but has since retaken the lead.

State Representative in the 167th District, Duane Milne, appears to have defeated his challenger in the primary.

Other statewide races: John Maher appears to have defeated Frank A. Pinto for Auditor General.

Kathleen Kane narrowly leads Patrick Murphy in the Democrat Party for Attorney General.

Looking ahead into November, The Congressional Districts 3-7 are looking good for the GOP (based on voter turnout) as they are leading against the amount of votes their challengers received on the Democrat Ballot.

Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-8) should be concerned as his competitor has received more votes than he has.

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-11) is leading in primary votes compared to the other party.

In other interesting news: There are less votes for President Obama in the primary than for the candidates for Attorney General in the Democrat Party. Also the GOP leading in presidential primary votes compared to the Obama.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Four Star General, Peter van Uhm, the highest ranking member of the Royal Netherlands Army, shares why sometimes you need to have a gun at Ted Talks, Amsterdam. Van Uhm said, “Sometimes only the gun can stand between good and evil,” He goes on further, “And that is why I took up the gun. Not to shoot, not to kill, not to destroy. But to stop those who would do evil. To protect the vulnerable. To defend democratic values.”

Monday, January 30, 2012

One of the 60 Minutes segments this week talked about a situation that I am very familiar with. It reported on how the Scimitar Horned Oryx, the Dama Gazelle, and the Addax were saved from extinction in Africa by sending them to ranches mainly located in Texas.

Over 30 years ago, the few remaining animals of each species were sent to ranches located in Texas and zoos even sent their remaining animals of each breed to the same ranches in the hopes of preventing them from becoming extinct. Today, there are now of total of over 50,000 Oryx, Dama Gazelle, and Addax frolicking around Texas. In fact, should someone want to see these animals, their only realistically going to find them in Texas and not so much of their native lands in Northern Africa. What helps keep these species alive are hunters who pay the ranches thousands of dollars for one of these animals. Sacrificing one can save over 10 others. The ranches then use the money to buy feed and help maintain a suitable habitat for them. It has turned into a $1 billion dollar industry.

Now the three animals are facing the greatest threat of extinction from an animal rights group called, Friends of Animals, and Priscilla Feral, who leads the organization. They recently won fighting in the courts and pressuring the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to where the Scimitar Horned Oryx, Dama Gazelle, and the Addax now need Federal Permits in order to hunt them. Essentially all the funding that helped save the animals, is now cut, and if the ranches cannot fund their survival, they will become extinct. Feral essentially claimed to 60 Minutes that these animals should not be in Texas and should be back in Africa. She fails to realize that Texas in the place that saved them. Friends of Animals don't realize that they will be the downfall of the animals they are "trying" to save. The 60 Minutes segment (which is fair to both sides) can be viewed here:

I love these animals (I have scene all of them), and I want them to succeed and thrive. The only way that can happen for the next 100 years (and most likely more) is in Texas and the ranches need the money from hunting in order to save them. Friends of Animals and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife will be responsible for the extinction of these animals within my lifetime should this order remain in effect.

-Christian

Update: Here is a Twitter conversation I had with Pricilla Feral:

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal You are about to destroy three species of animals. They cannot survive in Africa under current regimes. Texas is their only hope.

@pferal Priscilla Feral: @CRENpolitics Wrong. We reintroduced oryxes to Senegal in 1999. Thriving in protected Reserves over thousands of acres.

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal The ranches in Texas are thousands of acres and more importantly, are safe from poachers. 50,000 in Texas, several hundred in Africa.

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal B/c of you, who will provide the money to care for the 50,000 in Texas or do you just want them to die???

@pferal Priscilla Feral: @CRENpolitics Let the oryxes live out their lives on ranches or decent sanctuaries because on April 5, 2012 it's illegal to harm them.

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal I have been 2 Senegal, other African nations, and ranches in Texas. The safest place 4 the Oryx, Addax, and DG to survive is in Texas.

@pferal Priscilla Feral: @CRENpolitics Ridiculous and I was in Senegal 3 wks ago along with your obscene hunting ranches.

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal but they are not going to gain in population on Texas ranches because no one will care for them anymore meaning nearly all will die.

@pferal Priscilla Feral: @CRENpolitics Earth to you: Hunting ranches are not safe for animals hunted. In Senegal, numbers are increasing on protected lands.

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal why did their populations drop in Africa??? One reason is Qaddafi used them as missile practice. Still going to be harmed over there

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal how many in Senegal are there???? And by protected, how well guarded? Poachers still can "harm" them very easily in Senegal.

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal first of all, I never said I was a hunter, that was wrong of you to assume. Again, how many live in Africa?

---She never states how many of the three animals remain in Africa. Also notice how she only mentions the Oryx and not the Addax or Dama Gazelle which are also affected? By Feral's logic, every American whether they are of European, African, Asian or any descent should be sent back to their "native" lands even though these species (like many Americans) have been here for generations.

About Me

In case if you were wondering, CREN, are my initials and I decided to make that my website name. I have been interested in politics since the close election in 2000 with the tight race between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Since then I have and still remain interested in the studies of U.S. History and Political Science. I would consider myself a conservative however I'm not affiliated with any party as I am sick of the corruption in both the Democratic and Republican parties. They are taking us down the same path eventually will result in the destruction our nation. I believe in the politics of right and wrong not right and left. George Washington refused to be part of a political party because he thought a 2 party system (then the Federalist or Democrat-Republican parties at that time) would ultimately destroy our nation.
I'm a writer for several newspapers across America and Canada, and also work for political organizations.
If you have any opinions, questions, and/or viewpoints, please see the contact form on the blog.